Ron Paul – Rudy Giuliani Blowback Debate (Video)

The most interesting exchange from last night’s Republican debates was between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani over the cause of the 9/11 attacks. Paul asserted that they were “blowback” resulting from American interventionism in the Middle East, putting him right in Giuliani’s wheelhouse.

Is Ron Paul crazy as loon? Or is he on to something here?

The answer to both questions is Yes.

Al Qaeda has listed its grievances against us many times. This list, compiled from their 1998 declaration of jihad, is a good summary of their demands:

The end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state;

The removal of U.S. and Western forces from the Arabian peninsula;

The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands;

The end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India;

The end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera;

The conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resource and their sale at higher prices.

Giuliani’s indignant insistence that he doesn’t “think [he's] ever heard that before” is a great applause line but either dishonest or indicative of a woeful lack of awareness of world politics. [Of course, as Anderson notes, these are not mutually exclusive options.]

He compounds this during a post-debate interview with Sean Hannity trotting out the “they hate us for our freedom” nonsense. There are plenty of free countries in the world and most of them are much less religious and further along the road to homosexual rights, sexual freedom, toleration of drug use, and other things that would offend radical Muslim sensibilities than we are.

The reason the United States rather than Denmark or Holland or Canada was at the center of the jihadist threat was our foreign policy. We’re the number one supporter of Israel on the international scene, often standing alone among major powers in that regard. We sell modern military equipment to Arab dictators that the jihadis view as apostate. We do everything in our power to keep oil prices down. Our footprint in the Middle East is huge and our policy objectives are diametrically opposed to those of the Islamist fanatics.

That said, Paul’s insinuation that the 9/11 attacks were therefore our fault is outrageous. We can simultaneously recognize that our policies make people angry and insist on our sovereign right to act according to our interests. We can recognize that radical Muslims have grievances against us and still insist that murdering innocents is an unacceptable means of expressing those grievances.

Further, as Sean Hackbarth correctly notes, appeasement is not the answer.

Ask yourself this if the U.S. brought all its overseas forces back to the U.S.; if the U.S. left NATO and other alliances; if she told Israel, “You’re on your own,” do you really think Osama bin Laden and the Islamists would declare their war on the West to be over? Think they would go back to their villages and abuse their women in peace?

Obviously not. Indeed, they would rightly think they’ve won and take the lesson that they can achieve their policy aims through terrorism. Presumably, others would come to the same conclusion.

Ultimately, American foreign policy has to be set based on our interests and our values. Paul is right, though, that deciding that our sphere of influence is the entire globe and using all the tools available to The World’s Sole Remaining Superpower will naturally rub some people (including our allies) the wrong way. That needs to be factored into the equation.

UPDATE:Byron York has an excerpt from a post-debate interview with Paul, who dismissed as demagougery the idea that he “blames America.” “I blamed bad policy over 50 years that leads to anti-Americanism,” Paul said. “That’s little bit different from saying ‘blame America.’” Just a little bit. (via Andrew Samwick)

It’s always been clear that the whole ‘they hate us for our freedom’ meme was simply blood-raising jingoism. It’s equally clear that that sort of transparent pandering is just what the GOP base hungers for.

[...] Let me go back to Paul’s blowback argument. James Joyner, a man smarter than me on foreign policy (that’s what a Ph.D. will get you) lists a number of Osama bin Laden’s complaints with the U.S. So Paul is correct that Islamist terrorism is a response to U.S. foreign policy. Paul drops the ball big time when he ignores the nature of the nation state: That said, Paul’s insinuation that the 9/11 attacks were therefore our fault is outrageous. We can simultaneously recognize that our policies make people angry and insist on our sovereign rate to act according to our interests. We can recognize that radical Muslims have grievances against us and insist that murdering innocents is an unacceptable means of expressing those grievances. [...]

“… A hot girl in a mini-skirt may make herself a more attractive target for a potential rapist; it does not make the rape her fault. …”

That all depends if the girl in a mini-skirt is leading a murderous band which is killing your family.

Ron Paul pointed out that invading countries in the middle east and supporting dictators there is part of the reason we were attacked. In 1953 we deposed of the first democratically elected leader of Iran. Our other actions in the middle east have gone downhill ever since.

Hell, the fact our own CIA organized the al Qaeda to fight the USSR in Afghanistan and let it get out of control involves us in blame.

Just because the USA is our country does not mean we can do no wrong whatsoever in spite of what the “patriots” tell you.

We do have a huge footprint in the Middle East even excluding our forces in Iraq and have had for some time. However, as I’ve pointed out, that footprint is there, not due to any militarism or imperialism, but reluctantly and as the result of a process in which we’ve elected at virtually every step the least interventionist and most benign of the available alternatives.

That footprint is simultaneously a consequence and a cause of unrest in the Middle East. If somebody’s got another alternative, I’m ready to hear it (boy, am I ready). But it must take into account both past experience and present circumstances.

That said, Paul’s insinuation that the 9/11 attacks were therefore our fault is outrageous.

Fault is a difficult term here. You can always argue that the funny brown people and their strange hats should have just bent over when we decided to make them our bitches. Or at least you can argue that they had that option.

But at the same time, if you want to be realistic about the matter, our interference was obviously going to provoke hatred of us. And that hatred was going to find an outlet. It’s not our fault they destroyed the WTC buildings, but it is our fault that someone would hate us enough to want to destroy the WTC buildings.

We motivated their actions, even though we didn’t pick the specific actions.

Mostly though the exchange was telling in that it indicated the audience at least (and we can assume they may represent the primary voters) has no interest in the truth of the situation.

They are fundamentally *un*-curious about how we got here if the matter involves an analysis more complex than “We good-innocent, they bad-evil!”

Which is why the GOP nominees (except Paul, god bless the freak) are hel bent on furthering our current self destructive course. Their supporters don’t want to know the way out of the box, so the candidates reflect that back.

We do have a huge footprint in the Middle East even excluding our forces in Iraq and have had for some time. However, as I’ve pointed out, that footprint is there, not due to any militarism or imperialism, but reluctantly and as the result of a process in which we’ve elected at virtually every step the least interventionist and most benign of the available alternatives.

So overthrowing the Iranian’s democratic government to install a vicious monarch was the “least interventionist and most benign of the available alternatives”?

Good god, what else was on the table? Were we going to nuke Mecca?

I would have thought the least interventionist policy would simply be to have no troops there at all, and to refrain from meddling with their internal politics, isn’t that pretty much the definition of “least intervention”?

I would point to Schuler’s post here yesterday, about the Homocide bombing in Pakistan.

That our being in the area hasn’t a damned thing to do with our being attacked; they’d have attacked us, for idological reasons in any event. The prospect of having anyone in the White House who can’t make out this kind of basic logic, is frightening… and is exactly what has caused me of the last few eyars to be so violently anti-Democrat party.

Indeed; Ron Paul is engaging in what the Democrats have always seemed to be best at before; Blaming America. I can’t imagine that the left isn’t pleased by what they see in Ron Paul… a fellow traveler, which is what Paul has now labeled himself as, on national TV.

And there’s a lesson here for the Democrats, I think; The disgust for those who blame America is running high. Where does that leave the Democrats?

[...] From the Spin Room after last night’s GOP “debate” in South Carolina, Byron York captures Ron Paul’s reaction:For a man who had just grabbed the spotlight in a nationally televised presidential debate, Ron Paul seemed a little, well, defensive. A few minutes after the debate ended here at the University of South Carolina, Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, ventured into the Spin Room to talk to reporters, only to find that they wanted to know whether he really blamed the United States for the September 11 terrorist attacks.“Who did that?” Paul snapped. “Who blamed America?”“Well, your critics felt that you did.” “No, I blamed bad policy over 50 years that leads to anti-Americanism,” Paul said. “That’s little bit different from saying ‘blame America.’ Don’t put those words in my mouth.”“But the policies were bad American policies?”“We’ve had an interventionist foreign policy for 50 years that has come back to haunt us,” Paul continued. “So that’s not ‘Blame America’ — that’s demagoguing, distorting issues…That’s deceitful to say those kinds of things.”James Joyner at OTB has the best commentary I’ve seen on this issue in this post. I’m not surprised at Paul’s reaction to the spin, and I think the “American Idol” format is in part responsible, even though this one flowed better than the last. If this were really a “debate,” Paul’s point should be debated, not dismissed. [...]

You need to get a little more educated on Mossadegh, Tlaloc. He wasn’t elected democratically, his wasn’t a democratic regime, and he was about to be overthrow anyway. The Tudeh had stopped supporting him.

Again, present your alternative. I believe that the alternative was the Soviet Republic of Iran. Would that have been better?

Was the Shah’s regime more repressive than what replaced it? I don’t believe that the statistics support that claim.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t like our participation in the overthrow of Mossadegh (how involved we actually were is a matter for debate—I think that Kermit Roosevelt was doing a little resume padding. But that situation was like so many in our relationships in the Middle East: we’re stuck with all awful alternatives.

Your response suggests that we had an alternative that we simply did not have.

The history of our direct major military presence in the Middle East, basically, begins with the attempts of the present Iranian regime to close the Gulf during the war with Iraq. That force is a deterrent to doing just that. That’s what I meant by “past experience” and you’re ignoring it.

Of course the 800 pound gorilla in the room is our countries endless thirst for oil. (me included) and the fact that we have done next to nothing about getting off the oil (but that would hurt oil company profits!)

We have know since the early 70s about the dangers associated with dependence on middle eastern oil. Our response as a nation has been to build SUVs.

Does anyone think we would have a military presence in the middle east were our economy not reliant upon imported oil?

Perhaps you meant it as a riddle: when is a democratically elected leader not a democratically elected leader?

I give up, what’s the answer, Mr. Schuler?

I believe that the alternative was the Soviet Republic of Iran. Would that have been better?

Hell, yes! Notice that today we have pretty a pretty decent relationship with Russia and the other former Soviet republics. A bit rocky at times with Putin but it’s not like he’s threatening war with us, or vice versa.

Compare that to the last fifty years of hostility with Iran and it looks pretty darn good.

Was the Shah’s regime more repressive than what replaced it? I don’t believe that the statistics support that claim.

Was an autocratic monarch more repressive than a representation democracy? Hrmmmmm…..

lets see, the shah had two assassination attempts on his life, disbanded a rival party (the Tudeh), later disbanded the multiparty system entirely so he had total control, created the SAVAK secret police, (who were well known for the abuses most secret police organizations are reviled for)…

Certainly not everything the guy did was bad for the country but there is no tenable argument that he was anything but a total despot.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t like our participation in the overthrow of Mossadegh (how involved we actually were is a matter for debate—I think that Kermit Roosevelt was doing a little resume padding. But that situation was like so many in our relationships in the Middle East: we’re stuck with all awful alternatives.

Your response suggests that we had an alternative that we simply did not have.

That’s a cop out. We absolutely had the alternative of doing nothing. That is always a choice. And in many cases when it is a question of meddling with the internal affairs of a foreign people, it is the right option.

There is no reason we had to be involved in Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, Beruit and dozens of other countries. We could have left them alone, and if we had we would have been in a much better place now.

The history of our direct major military presence in the Middle East, basically, begins with the attempts of the present Iranian regime to close the Gulf during the war with Iraq. That force is a deterrent to doing just that. That’s what I meant by “past experienceâ€ and you’re ignoring it.

I guess that depends on what you mean by “direct major military presence” then. We had troops in Beirut back in the early 80s. Israel is armed with a ton of our military toys. The CIA was running all over the place ever since the 50s.

The “past experience” you speak of seems to depend on applying a very heavy and very subjective filter to the history.

Hell, the fact our own CIA organized the al Qaeda to fight the USSR in Afghanistan and let it get out of control involves us in blame.

Wrong. Another Liberal Myth resurfaces. The Afgans we funded and assisted had nothing to do with al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda were made up of non Afgan fighters from other Arab countries. Osama bin Laden was looking to use the war to further is religious campaign and his al Qaeda fighters were often regarded as johny-come-latelys by the Afgans.

The point is that Radical Islam is a 7th century religion that hasn’t adjusted to the modern world and is feeling threatened by that world. Countries with Islamic governments have bloody borders all over the world. It didn’t start with America on 9/11. It didn’t start when Israel became a nation. It started in the 7th century and has never ended. Still Ron Paul and the Democrats will do anything to blame America.

OK, here’s one for you to ponder. Assume for a moment that they really do hate us “for our freedoms” – that an ideologically-motivated attack was inevitable. What are the possible responses to such an assumption? I see only two real options:
a) no-nonsense genocidal war against “them”, however one defines the group, and
b) altering and/or eliminating our freedoms until “they” have nothing to complain about

For the last several years, the Bush administration (with cheerleading from the rest of the GOP) has been saying A) while actually doing B). The Democrats, by and large, have been trying to point out that the basic assumption is bogus. The fact that Paul’s trying to point it out too, rather than play for applause from the red-meat crowd, is a good sign, IMHO.

That’s not true, although the original poster did overstate the matter. We trained and armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan through contacts between the CIA and ISI. Al Qaeda was a successor organization.

It started in the 7th century and has never ended.

And yet isn’t it strange how after the crusades we have a long long relatively quiet period, and then a sudden explosion of violence after Israel is founded. Isn’t that curious?

What nonsense, of course its blowback, to ignore its place in the debate just reaffirms the rest of the world’s presumption that we are an ignorant self-pitying bully. Even a cursory review of US policy and history demonstrates our predeliction to choose stability and economic interest over democracy and economic development. What are the other’s solutions? War on terror and military force for the next decade and beyond, and for what exactly?

for perspective, think of being a palestinian and for decades the isreali PM on TV are all european born, in fact the majority still are, i.e. think perspective, Europe forced an essentially european transplant right on top of their homes. Its been 50 years of blowback. Rational discussion like Paul’s is shouted down by claims of rascism, nationalism, pandering to the ingorant who want to feel good and blamelss. So what, we just keep letting our boys die in Iraq, then maybe Iran? Think people.

To get back on point for just a second, jihad only works with at least some measure of popular support; from family, friends, community leaders.

Since 9/11, the operant phrase to guide us in undercutting the base of support in the islamic world is “it’s Palestine, stupid.”

NOTHING engenders antipathy towards us as much as our commitment to the status quo in Palestine. The Arab League’s plan is not so radical.

Achieve peace there, with obvious American leadership. Reduce our footprint in the arab world, especially in Saudi Arabia. Increase investment in education in the middle east (have you seen how many leaders there attend the American Universities in Cairo and Beirut?).

Finally, recognize that “in S’allah” is not just a phrase, but a way of thought that stifles development in the arab world. People do not see themselves as causes of change; everything happens because Allah wills it. If you doubt this, try making plans with an arab you meet on the street. His intentions may be excellent, but he does not determine what he does tomorrow, let alone next week.

Dudes why, once again, you do not give the faithful any credit at all, they attack us because they are true believers in Islam, it is the the greatest thing that they can do before the eyes of their god and the only way to become worthy. Ron Paul is just another liberal who don’t know his ass from the from the donkyhole he is brown nosing, and most of you have learned much about how to hate of America and Israel but have missed the class on why Islam hates America and Israel. You can try to explain the obvious forever with your misbegotten liberal logic but using such an artefactual method only leads to one conclusion: Their is no black or white just endless shades of grey. or let me hit you with it this way, you can crap in one hand and donkypoop in the other but in the end your going to be standing their with two handfuls of Sh-t looking like a Jackass.

Of course the 800 pound gorilla in the room is our countries endless thirst for oil. (me included) and the fact that we have done next to nothing about getting off the oil (but that would hurt oil company profits!)

Which will only further marginalize the GOP until it’s remaining sane members either take it back or jump ship to re-form an actual ‘conservative’ party. Win-win.

I see your point, but I think the country would run much better with two working parties (and better still with thirty). We’ve seen where one party rule gets us, and no the Dems won’t be any better in that regard.

Well, a bit of back-of-the-hand calculations says that for $3/gallon gas, a 1/8 supply drop translates to a direct increase of 37.5 cents, plus additional premiums for percieved scarcity, plus the inevitible gouge from the suppliers, plus overhead costs from re-organizing oil transport lines, etc., etc. It may only be 1/8, but it’s still non-trivial in terms of economic impact…

…they attack us because they are true believers in Islam, it is the the greatest thing that they can do before the eyes of their god and the only way to become worthy…most of you have learned much about how to hate of America and Israel but have missed the class on why Islam hates America and Israel.

Really, GA? And what class is that? What deep knowledge do you have of Islam beyond what you hear from bigoted jerks like Steyn and Savage and Glen Beck?

The class is on reading their history and their bible and finding out what it means to be a true believer, by this you can see the truth of the faith of Islam and what the true goal of Mohammad and his god Allah is. It is plain for all to see, to know what what the mission of this faith is, and its Revelation, and that the terrorist is sum total of the beloved of Allah, this is what Mohammad tells us, as he says his god has told him. I would suggest that you go to the source, here is a site you might find useful, http://www.prophetofdoom.net please take your time and study it well, there are other resource links there also. I had tried to tell you simply before, in the hopes that those of you who have read my posts before would care enough to investigate for your self but mostly if you haven’t noticed I am a bit lacking in puter skills, save for killing zombies and shooting the poop with you guys that is, kind of scared of getting made fun of for screwing up a link or something, haha. Oh and one more thing, whats a Steyn? Savage is a Dolt, and Beck is kinda funny, sometimes.

[...] To examine Al-Qaeda’s casus belli we need to examine a document, Osama Bin Laden’s first fatwa against America. In this document, he lays out several grievances he has against the United States as paraphrased by James Joyner: [...]